{
  "id": 8613587,
  "name": "R. C. BRAFFORD v. W. E. COOK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brafford v. Cook",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "699",
  "last_page": "701",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 699"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 309",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627237
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166144
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630033
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S.E. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.C. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651815
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 565",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624633
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627456
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0558-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.C. 787",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628584
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628393
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 S.E. 2d 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0639-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619657
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620101
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167077
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 661",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629236
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631749
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0680-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 5711,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.636380574172309e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9485904390564855
    },
    "sha256": "838024d57f5181020514b891c85542da5fcdd173b4b0392388237eb7bab1d435",
    "simhash": "1:8723f4001c1a1b7f",
    "word_count": 989
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. C. BRAFFORD v. W. E. COOK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt would seem that the trial court was influenced by the \u25a0defendant\u2019s evidence in sustaining his demurrer and entering a compulsory nonsuit. However, as the defendant\u2019s evidence is in direct conflict with the evidence of the plaintiff, its credibility is for the jury and it is not to be considered by the court on motion for involuntary nonsuit. Jackson v. Hodges, Comr., ante, 694; Graham v. Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680.\nFor present purposes, the plaintiff\u2019s evidence is to be taken as true, and he is entitled to every reasonable intendment and legitimate inference fairly deducible therefrom. Howard v. Bell, ante, 611; Graham v. Gas Co., supra; Higdon v. Jaffa, 231 N.C. 242, 56 S.E. 2d 661; S. v. Blankenship, 229 N.C. 589, 50 S.E. 2d 724; Love v. Zimmerman, 226 N.C. 389, 38 S.E. 2d 220; Highway Com. v. Transp. Corp., 226 N.C. 371, 38 S.E. 2d 214; Davis v. Wilmerding, 222 N.C. 639, 24 S.E. 2d 337; Diamond v. Service Stores, 211 N.C. 632, 191 S.E. 355; Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N.C. 787, 178 S.E. 601.\nIf the defendant came from behind the car in the northern lane at a terrific rate of speed, knocked the plaintiff angling for a distance of 15 yards and was unable to stop bis truck under 75 yards from where be \u25a0struck tbe plaintiff, as plaintiff\u2019s witness says, it would seem to be fairly \u25a0debatable whether his speed was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. G.S. 20-141 (a); S. v. Blankenship, supra; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E. 2d 829; Baker v. Perrott, 228 N.C. 558, 46 S.E. 2d 461; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 226 N.C. 692, 40 S.E. 2d 345; Tarrant v. Bottling Co., 221 N.C. 390, 20 S.E. 2d 565; Kolman v. Silbert, 219 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 2d 915. True, the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s witness as to the speed of the truck was weakened somewhat on cross-examination, but this would still require a finding to determine the matter. Shell v. Roseman, 155 N.C. 90, 71 S.E. 86. Discrepancies and contradictions, \u25a0even in plaintiff\u2019s evidence, are for the twelve and not for the court. Jackson v. Hodges, supra, and cases cited; Bailey v. Michael, 231 N.C. 404, 57 S.E. 2d 372; Barlow v. Bus Lines, 229 N.C. 382, 49 S.E. 2d 793; Emery v. Ins. Co., 228 N.C. 532, 46 S.E. 2d 309; Lincoln v. R. R., supra.\nThe case seems to be one for the jury. Williams v. Kirkman, ante, 609; Bailey v. Michael, supra; Lincoln v. R. R., supra.\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. L. Hamme for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J ames Mullen for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. C. BRAFFORD v. W. E. COOK.\n(Filed 22 November, 1950.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 32b\u2014\nDefendant\u2019s evidence in direct conflict with that of plaintiff is not to be considered by the court on motion for involuntary nonsuit.\n2. Trial \u00a7 22a\u2014\nOn motion to nonsuit, plaintiff\u2019s evidence is to be taken as true and he is entitled to every reasonable intendment and legitimate inference fairly deducible therefrom.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7\u00a7 16, 18h (2) \u2014 Plaintiff\u2019s evidence of defendant\u2019s excessive speed under circumstances held for jury on issue of negligence.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tending to show that defendant was driving his truck on the extreme right lane of a four lane highway following an automobile, that he came from behind the car into the passing lane at a terrific speed and struck plaintiff, who was a pedestrian attempting to cross the highway some 400 feet beyond an intersection, and knocked plaintiff some 15 yards and was unable to stop his truck under 75 yards from the impact, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon the issue of negligence notwithstanding that the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s witnesses as to the speed of the truck was weakened somewhat on cross-examination, defendant\u2019s evidence in conflict with that of plaintiff as to the speed of the truck not being considered. G.S. 20-141 (a).\n4. Trial \u00a7 22c\u2014\nDiscrepancies and contradictions, even in plaintiff\u2019s evidence, do not justify nonsuit.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., July Term, 1950, of GastoN.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.\nOn tbe afternoon of 25 August, 1949, tbe plaintiff was undertaking to cross tbe Cbarlotte-Gastonia, four-lane, Highway \u2014 Wilkinson Boulevard \u2014about 400 feet west of tbe Belmont-Mount Holly Highway intersection when be was struck by a Chevrolet truck, operated by defendant, and seriously injured.\nPlaintiff was crossing on foot from north to south. He says he stopped and looked in both directions before entering upon the hard-surface. He saw a car about 200 feet away, approaching him in the northern lane at a moderate rate of speed. He did not see the defendant\u2019s truck which was either back of this car in the northern lane or in the second lane of travel. He heard a roar, started hurrying across, and was \u201cthree feet over in the third lane\u201d when he was struck by defendant\u2019s truck, traveling west-wardly towards Gastonia.\nPlaintiff\u2019s witness, Mrs. Elizabeth Orr, says: \u201cThe truck was proceeding behind the family car in the extreme northerly lane when I first saw it. . . . This truck in behind comes with a roar and pulls around this car . . . going at a terrific speed and hit Mr. Brafford and knocked him angling 15 yards, and the truck didn\u2019t get stopped for 75 yards after it hit Mr. Brafford. ... At the time of the accident the weather was clear and the highway was dry.\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence paints quite a different picture. It tends to show that the plaintiff ran into the right front fender of defendant\u2019s moving truck, which was traveling in the second or speed lane, and that the driver of the truck when he first saw the plaintiff, tried to avoid the injury by turning to his left.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nJ. L. Hamme for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ ames Mullen for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0699-01",
  "first_page_order": 747,
  "last_page_order": 749
}